Last week saw the premiere of a movie based on Atlas Shrugged, the hernia-inducing monster of a novel by Ayn Rand. The unanimous consensus of critics was that it bombed.
Also last week, House Republicans – including the 2nd District’s Greg Walden – premiered a turkey of their own: a plan aimed at trimming the federal deficit by $4.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Its twin pillars are (a) if you’re rich the government will make you richer, and (b) if you’re not rich the government will throw you under the bus.
The plan is the handiwork of Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Ryan is a self-professed avid admirer of Ayn Rand and her crackpot philosophy, and his plan shows it.
In The World According to Rand, only the rich and successful have any real value to society. They provide all the brains, talent and creativity to make things work; everybody else is more or less a parasite, a “moocher” or a “looter” sponging off the energy and ability of his betters. Since the rich and successful are the only worthwhile members of society, they deserve the rewards – not just more of the rewards, but all of the rewards.
Thus Ryan’s plan proposes to reduce the deficit by, among other things, permanently continuing George W. Bush’s tax cuts for billionaires and reducing the top corporate and individual income tax rates to 25% from 35%. (Considering how well trickle-down tax policy worked under Bush, what we clearly need is a much bigger trickle.)
For the looters and moochers (that’s you and me) Ryan prescribes harsher medicine. He wants to “reform” (read: “kill”) Medicare by turning it into a voucher program in which seniors will get limited subsidies to buy private health insurance. (Considering what a great job the private sector already is doing at providing affordable coverage for Americans under 65, this idea looks like a real winner.) He also wants to make Medicaid a block grant program, meaning states would get a limited annual amount of federal funds and would have to trim health care for low-income residents accordingly.
Initial indications are the “looters” and “moochers” are not eager to embrace Ryan’s Randian vision of Utopia. Early polls show more than 70% of Americans strongly oppose the Medicare proposal, in particular. And with Democrats in control of the Senate and White House, the Ryan plan has about as much chance of becoming law as the Atlas Shrugged movie has of copping next year’s Best Picture Oscar.
Still, by voting for Ryan’s plan – and implicitly endorsing the brutal and destructive philosophy underlying it – Greg Walden and the rest of the House Republicans have given the finger to hundreds of millions of hard-working Americans.
It’s not going to make a damn bit of difference what we say about Greg Walden. The Republican Party could get a blue-assed baboon elected in the 2nd District – and someday probably will. But for our own personal gratification, and as a gesture on behalf of the rational and compassionate voters in his district, we’re giving him THE BOOT anyway.
This article appears in Apr 21-27, 2011.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
“(Considering what a great job the private sector already is doing at providing affordable coverage for Americans under 65, this idea looks like a real winner.)”
Are you seriously saying the Gov. would do a better job than the private sector? At anything, let alone healthcare!! Take off your Progressive goggles, and see the light. WE DONT NEED OUR GOV. HAVING ANY MORE GRIP ON OUR LIVES THAN WE ALREADY DO!!!!!!!
Are you seriously saying that you prefer the current system to one with tighter regulatory controls on all of the pigs at the healthcare trough?
Frankly, I don’t care what the critics have said. Average revenues per screen for Atlas Shrugged, Pt 1 opening weekend were $5,640 per screen. They beat out Michael Moore’s last two films: Sicko and Capitalism and they have since expanded to more screens.
In your opinion piece above, “In The World According to Rand, only the rich and successful have any real value to society. They provide all the brains, talent and creativity to make things work; everybody else is more or less a parasite, a ‘moocher’ or a ‘looter’ sponging off the energy and ability of his betters.” It is clear you never bothered to conduct research for your piece and have little or no understanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy aka objectivism. According to the Ayn Rand Institute website, “The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.” You have a mutual employment agreement with you employers so you would not be a “moocher”.
It also seems clear that you reject trickle down economics despite the evidence that shows it worked when Kennedy cut taxes, Reagan cut taxes and Bush cut taxes. It also seems clear that the ideal system you would embrace – as well as Mr gadfly – is an expansion of government run healthcare, aka public option or Medicare for all. Wonderful idea to put our healthcare in the same hands as the people who manage FEMA (read Katrina response), Amtrax, the US Postal System, and every other well run (sarcasm intentional) government program. That thought alone should scare the crap out of you.
The oddest thing I see in your piece is that you seem you support the current out-of-control deficit spending, or at least haven't bothered to condemn it; only condemning those trying to fix it. As I recall, liberals (not necessarily you in particular) blasted Reagan for running up debt, blasted G. H. Bush for running up debt and blasted G.W. Bush for running up debt, but adore B. Obama for running up debt faster than any of the three. Go figure.
Regards
EdO
EdO,
You lost me at your first lie. According to non-right-wing theater totals, the numbers for the opening weekend were less than $2,300 per theater. The second weekend was down to less than $830 per theater. The total domestic gross is south of $3.3 million, as of the 26th. I think that the Rand fan spend more than $20 million to get the horrible thing made in the first place. I guess that the market has spoken and there are fewer of you out there than you have convinced yourself that there are. Maybe if you apologize for proporting falsehoods as the truth, I will read and then correct the rest of your comments. By the way, here is the link to my box office info. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=atlasshrugged.htm
Greetings localfella;
Perhaps you should have looked around that website a bit more. Please note the number $5,640 on the left side under Domestic Summary. And for the record, I did say “opening weekend”. If you’re going to call someone a liar, you should have your own facts straight. As for whether it is horrible, that is for the fans – not the critics – to decide. From what I see, over 80% of the viewers have given the film a “C” or better.
No apology from you needed.
Regards
EdO
It is important that this link be posted as it needed to go with my last post. Thanks
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=atlasshrugged.htm
Regards
EdO
Daily number is what counts. That is the number on the calendar that I linked to. I think that the most telling info is that it sounds like the producer will not make part 2 or 3. If it did as well as you seem to suggest, making more would be a no-brainer. Again, the market speaks.
I guess that I need to apologize for saying you lied. You did not technically lie. I am sorry. You did, however mislead. You stated that they “beat out” Moore’s last two movies. Using the summary tab that you linked to, you are correct. However, you didn’t mention the number of screens and per screen numbers can definitely tell the true story. Moores movies opened to more than double the number of screens and will will end up grossing much more than Atlas Shrugged. You also didn’t mention the drop off in per screen revenue after the first weekend. The original article’s point stands (the movie bombed) and the fact that there probably won’t be more made only reinforces that point.